We use cookies to improve our site and your experience. By continuing to browse on this website you accept the use of cookies. Read more...

London Borough of Camden v Foxtons Limited [2017] UKUT 349 (AAC)

The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (the Act’) requires all letting agents in England and Wales to publicise details of their fees and provide a description of the fee that is ...

...‘sufficient to enable a person who is liable to pay it to understand the service or cost that is covered by the fee or the purpose for which it is imposed’ (s. 83(4)(a)). The local weights and measures authority may issue a fixed penalty notice of up to £5,000 for failure to comply with the Act.  London Borough of Camden v Foxtons Ltd is the first appeal under this statutory regime to be considered by the Upper Tribunal (‘UT”). 

The Facts

LB Camden (‘LBC’), the local weights and measures authority, was concerned about Foxtons displaying a one-off ‘administration charge’ of £420 without a sufficient description of what services were included in the fee.  Following a series of exchanges with the company and the issue of Notices of Intent in relation to three branches in the borough and Foxtons’ website, LBC issued Final Notices, confirming financial penalties totalling £20,000.  Prior to the issue of the Final Notice, Foxtons had changed the wording of its scale of charges, but LBC took the view that the company still breached the requirements of the Act.

The First-Tier Tribunal allowed Foxtons’ appeal to the extent that it reduced the total penalty to £12,000 on the basis that the revised wording used by Foxtons following the Notices of Intent complied with the statutory regime. 

The Decision

The UT allowed LBC’s appeal.  Foxtons’ reworded text described the £420 administration fee as ‘a fixed cost fee that can cover a variety of works, depending on the individual circumstances of each tenancy, including but not limited to conducting viewings, negotiating the tenancy, verifying references and drawing up contracts.’   The UT held that the phrase ‘can cover’ encompassed the idea of ‘might not cover’ and was therefore not sufficiently clear to indicate that there would be no services incurring a further charge.  The failure of the First-Tier Tribunal to appreciate the implication of the wording amounted to an error of law.

The UT gave credit for Foxtons’ attempt, albeit unsuccessful, to design compliant wording.  This credit merited a 25% discount or £500 in respect of each of the four breaches.  The total penalty, therefore, was £18,000. 

Barbara Zeitler / 13th Oct 2017


Disclaimer

The information and any commentary on the law contained on this web site is provided free of charge for information purposes only. Every reasonable effort is made to make the information and commentary accurate and up to date, but no responsibility for its accuracy and correctness, or for any consequences of relying on it, is assumed by any member of Chambers. The information and commentary does not, and is not intended to, amount to legal advice to any person on a specific case or matter. You are strongly advised to obtain specific, personal advice from a lawyer about your case or matter and not to rely on the information or comments on this site. No responsibility is accepted for the content or accuracy of linked sites.


Download as PDF


Back to News

 

Get In Touch

If you like what you've read but want to know more about how we can help you, simply call us:


020 7797 8300


Alternatively you can  send us an email and a member of our team will contact you as soon as possible.

Share: